PROPERTARIANISM Types of Property The anarchist libertarians have artificially n

PROPERTARIANISM

Types of Property

The anarchist libertarians have artificially narrowed the concept of property to suit their desired ends. Property exists in those forms that people ACT as if it exists. If the anarchists choose to suggest otherwise, they refute their own arguments for the Praxeological necessity for the institution of property. Humans demonstrably act as though there are four categories of property:

I. Interpersonal (Relationship) Property

Cooperative Property: “relationships with others and tools of relationships upon which we reciprocally depend.”

Mates (access to sex/reproduction)

Children (genetic reproduction)

Familial Relations (security)

Non-Familial Relations (utility)

Consanguineous Relations (tribal and family ties)

Racial property (racial ties)

Organizational ties (work)

Knowledge ties (skills, crafts)

Status and Class (reputation)

II. Several (Personal) Property

Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”

Physical Body

Actions and Time

Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.

Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.

III. Artificial Property

Artificial Property: “Can a group issue specific rights to members?” This topic is dependent again, upon the ORIGIN question above. If markets are made, then the shareholders of the market may create artificial property of any type that they desire. Including but not limited to:

Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)

Monopoly Property such as intellectual property. (grants of monopoly within a geography)

Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).

IV. Institutional (Community) Property

Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”

Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price. The costs are subjective and consists of forgone opportunities.

Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws. Formal institutional property is easy to price. costs are visible. And the productivity of the social order is at least marginally measurable.

VOLUNTARY TRANSFER

Types of Voluntary Transfer

i – Self-Eschange: (for perks)

ii – Other-Exchange (everything is exchange)

iii – Commons-Exchange (contribution to the commons)

Constraints on Voluntary Transfer

1. Symmetry (Ethics): Fully informed exchange. The responsibility or lack of responsibility for symmetric knowledge in an exchange. Stated as “In any exchange the seller has an ethical obligation to mitigate fraud from the asymmetry of knowledge.” Classical liberals and Christian authors advocate symmetrical-knowledge ethics. Anarchists and Jewish authors advocate asymmetrical-knowledge ethics. Rothbard and Block are asymmetrical advocates. Most classical liberals lack the knowledge of Rothbardian/Hoppian ethics necessary to articulate their values in Propertarian terms. However, the classical liberals as well as the Hayekians, both advocate symmetrical-knowledge ethics whether they articulate the ideas effectively or not.

2. Warranty: Implied warranty is a derivation of Symmetrical Knowledge Ethics above. Expressed as: “In any exchange the seller must warrant his goods and services to prevent fraud by asymmetry of information.” Classical liberal and Christian authors imply warranty. Anarchist and Jewish authors expressly deny warranty. (I address this elsewhere as the bazaar exchange ethic vs the warrior exchange ethic.)

3. Contribution (value added): You must add value to any item exchanged for profit, and you certainly may not profit from others distress or harm.

4. Externalities: “No exchange, action or inaction may cause involuntary transfers from others”. Whether or not there is a prohibition against all involuntary external transfers (classical liberal and Christian authors), or a prohibition only against state conduct of involuntary transfers (anarchist and Jewish authors).

5. Exclusion (Ostracization) Whether individuals can aggregate into groups have the right of exclusion. That is, to prohibit individuals from a defined area. While all seem to agree that individuals must have the right of passage in some way, others deny groups from forming a boundary and in effect prohibiting immigration.

INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER (PARASITISM)

Types of Involuntary Transfer

i-Direct Interpersonal

– Murder

– Violence

– Destruction

– Theft

– Theft by Fraud

– Theft by Fraud by omission

ii – Indirect Interpersonal

– Theft by Obstruction

– Theft by Externalization

iii – Indirect Social

– Theft by Free riding

– Theft by privatization

– Theft by socialization

iv – Conspiratorial Social

– Theft by Rent seeking

– Theft by Complexity, Rule, Process or Obscurantism

– Theft by Extortion

– Murder, Destruction and Theft by War

v – Conquest

– Immigration

– Overbreeding

– Religious Expansion